Staple Spells Used against Genre Conventions

[Darkness]

Don't you DARE put words in my mouth.

Relax, he probably just misunderstood you or didn't phrase his summary very carefully.

Please be nice, everybody. This includes trying not to misrepresent their opinions.

 

[jodyjohnson]

In other words: "Guys, If you have to fight, I want you to fight stupid!". That's the gist of your rumble here.

Pretty much. Although substitute 'Heroicly' for 'Stupidly'.

The consensus seems to be fighting honorably is fighting stupidly. Which implies that if you want to be a hero you need to be that much better or just plain lucky.

If you said: "Don't always fight to kill, people" I would have agreed with you.

Good idea. That's really what I'm driving at.

But if they're going to kill the enemy, they might as well do it smart.

Is there a distinction between fighting smart and fighting unfairly (gaining an overwhelming advantage)?

I think there's a line that gets crossed somewhere but I'm still trying to place it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Relax, he probably just misunderstood you or didn't phrase his summary very carefully.

Please be nice, everybody. This includes trying not to misrepresent their opinions.

My bad.

I'd humbly bow in apology, but that would waste my actions for the turn and someone would probably coup de gras me in my self-imposed helpless state.

Too late for the retroactive smilie.

 

[der_kluge]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that what Jody's real problem is is a lack of strong tactics against his PCs. I had this problem. I'l put together some wicked encounter, and then in about two rounds, 80% of my forces would be stunned, immobilized, or otherwise debilitated in some form or another that I couldn't do anything but continue through the process of combat to watch my carefully statted out creatures get butchered.

This happens.

I admit that I suck at tactics, and my players are way better than I was at running combat.

I think there are others solutions to your problem other than implementing arbitrary groundrules for combat:
a) get better with tactics. Admittedly hard, and if you aren't a big wargamer like I am not, this may not be achievable, since you might have players that will always be able to run circles around you
b) find your characters' weaknesses and exploit them. A little easier, but may be hard to do if your players are particularly crafty. Do it too well, and you get a TPK on your hand.
c) make the characters understand that there are ramifications for their actions. They kill someone in a bar fight, that's murder in the second degree. There are laws against that in most places. So, bring the militia after them, and don't stop until the PC is apprehended or dead.
d) Try another rule system. D&D has a wealth of spell options (taking up nearly a half of the PHB). That's a lot of complexity to manage and understand. Moving to something simpler like HARP or Grim Tales might very well be an option for you that you might ought to consider.

 

[Storm Raven]

For example, they were 5th level fighting normal Orcs. The fighter was Enlarged, Bull Strength, Bard Songed, and then Hasted. They were destroying the orcs before Haste came out.

They were overkilling the mooks so bad that I made the end boss run away because it was so obvious to him that there was no contest.

End result: no challenge, and no resolution with the end boss (orc chief), no reward.

I wouldn't worry about this so much. Look at the resources they used to buff up the fighter: a 1st level spell, a 2nd level spell, and a 3rd level spell, plus a class ability. If they had instead cast Fireball, Scare, and Sleep they would have accomplished much the same thing but more directly.

It seems from your list of gripes that it isn't smart tactics you dislike, but the use of magic to aid in overcoming combat encounters. If I were you I'd think about whether a game system like D&D, where the default assumption is that magic is common and powerful, is the game system for you.

 

[Darkness]

a) get better with tactics. Admittedly hard, and if you aren't a big wargamer like I am not, this may not be achievable, since you might have players that will always be able to run circles around you.

Ah, but he can ask EN World to help him plan tactics for his creatures. So can you, of course.

 

[reveal]

My bad.

I'd humbly bow in apology, but that would waste my actions for the turn and someone would probably coup de gras me in my self-imposed helpless state.

Too late for the retroactive smilie.

My bad too. My bent on the topic just hit too close to home.

 

[reveal]

It seems from your list of gripes that it isn't smart tactics you dislike, but the use of magic to aid in overcoming combat encounters. If I were you I'd think about whether a game system like D&D, where the default assumption is that magic is common and powerful, is the game system for you.

I agree with this sentiment. Magic in D&D is supposed to enhance the gameplay. It is supposed to be used as an aid in situations in which you are either the protagonist or antagonist.

I would consider playing in Oriental Adventures or Lord of the Five Rings if you're looking to play in a system where honor is prized above all.

 

[WayneLigon]

Some other ideas:

1. Get someone else to run combats for you. I know of at least two other DMs that do this. They don't like the fiddly bits about combat, so they draft someone else to run combats for them. Then they can concentrate on story line and playing NPC's and the like.

2. You mention that your players don't like playing to the genre conventions. Do they know what the genre conventions are? Do they read a lot of fantasy or SF fiction? Have they seen and liked a lot of the movies out there that show a more heroic way of doing things? Or are they game players and only game players - ie do they see this as something to be 'won'?

 

[shilsen]

The consensus seems to be fighting honorably is fighting stupidly. Which implies that if you want to be a hero you need to be that much better or just plain lucky.

Only if your definition of a hero is fairly narrow. To use an example from fiction, most people would see Indiana Jones as a heroic character. Does the scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Indy faces a guy swinging a big sword and proceeds to shoot him make Indy stop being a hero? Not for me. Maybe it does for you.

Is there a distinction between fighting smart and fighting unfairly (gaining an overwhelming advantage)?

I think there's a line that gets crossed somewhere but I'm still trying to place it.

I think the primary problem is that any of those definitions are totally arbitrary. If a wizard casts a spell on a barbarian while the latter is fifty feet away, is he fighting fair? If he fights the barbarian hand-to-hand, with his feeble brawn and lack of weapon skill against the barbarian's muscles and greatsword, is the barbarian fighting fair? If a guy with a longsword fights someone with a dagger, is the former fighting fair?

In any situation, someone is going to be superior to the other, so there is some inherent unfairness. Short of stripping everyone down to their briefs, piling rocks on the stronger and quicker guys to handicap them, slightly poisoning the combatants with higher hit points to reduce them to the same level as those with less, and so on, there is no way any encounter will have everyone on an even keel.

My solution - I tell my players to run their PCs as smart and deadly as possible and use varied tactics and intelligent thinking to challenge the heck out of them with supposedly weaker opponents, and we have a blast doing it.